Upon talking with Atheists and reflecting on why I believe in God.

[All Becomes New]

How convenient that the “correct” religion just happens to be the dominant one in the country in which you live!

I invite you to find a religion with more evidence if you can.

 

[Yttrium]

So, does that mean you are not even going to pick something? Because that seems to be what you are saying. Christianity has the most evidence behind it. If you pick something else in good faith, then that is up to you. That is what you should do is actually take the argument seriously. What you are doing is bringing up excuses why you shouldn't take it seriously.

My point was that Pascal's Wager fails as far as Christianity is concerned, because it suggests salvation through simple belief in God rather than faith in Jesus. Granted, since I'm not Christian, it's not really my place to decide that, and I was hoping to get a counterargument of some sort.

As far as me personally? I picked Christianity, which is what I was raised in. I never developed faith in it (or anything else), so I'm not a Christian. People raised in other religions will tend to pick those religions to try out. Now look at a faithful Muslim, who accepts and passes Pascal's wager by believing in God. Saved? Well, as far as Islam is concerned*. But I doubt Pascal would think so.


*(Although by being faithful and following God's laws, not by simple belief in God.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point was that Pascal's Wager fails as far as Christianity is concerned, because it suggests salvation through simple belief in God rather than faith in Jesus. Granted, since I'm not Christian, it's not really my place to decide that, and I was hoping to get a counterargument of some sort.

As far as me personally? I picked Christianity, which is what I was raised in. I never developed faith in it (or anything else), so I'm not a Christian. People raised in other religions will tend to pick those religions to try out. Now look at a faithful Muslim, who accepts and passes Pascal's wager by believing in God. Saved? Well, as far as Islam is concerned. But I doubt Pascal would think so.

There is a counter argument, but from my vantage point, the whole idea of Pascal's Wager isn't well understood and, these days, it seems to be turned into a whipping post by various skeptics who think it makes for an easy target.

Pascal's Wager may or may not be useful to you or me, but what we don't want to do is strawman it and think that its intent was to offer salvation through simple belief in God when in fact it does no such thing. For anyone who has truly taken the time to study the Wager and its contextual place in the Pensees, one can see that the reason Pascal offered it was simply to encourage some folks to give Christianity additional time for further consideration.

 

[All Becomes New]

My point was that Pascal's Wager fails as far as Christianity is concerned, because it suggests salvation through simple belief in God rather than faith in Jesus. Granted, since I'm not Christian, it's not really my place to decide that, and I was hoping to get a counterargument of some sort.

As far as me personally? I picked Christianity, which is what I was raised in. I never developed faith in it (or anything else), so I'm not a Christian. People raised in other religions will tend to pick those religions to try out. Now look at a faithful Muslim, who accepts and passes Pascal's wager by believing in God. Saved? Well, as far as Islam is concerned. But I doubt Pascal would think so.

Pascals wager doesn't say what God to ascribe to. It says that you should settle the dispute within yourself on whether believing in God for eternal rewards is a good model as far as our finite nature is concerned.

I could tell you I was a pantheist at one point, which isn't something I was raised with. But I believe Christianity is the correct religion now. So the fact that someone somewhere has a different religion they ascribe to because they were born there doesn't hold weight in every case. It's also dishonest to say people in 1st world countries who have the internet are simply believing in the religion they were raised with. People are leaving the church, not because they have intellectual doubts, but because they have emotional doubts that don't get answered. I left Christianity for a time because I had doubts and didn't have answers for my emotional reasoning behind my doubts. But now, the more I read the Bible in combination with commentaries and study bibles (such as the ESV study Bible) I realize that a lot of the problems I have with a particular text are ousted from the get go given these resources answer most of my objections before they can take root in my mind. When you read the Bible for yourself and you are left to entertain any thoughts at all, it's easy to come up with questions that cause doubts that will not get answered unless you put in some serious study. Most people don't keep reading when they have doubts. They think their doubts are evidence that the Bible isn't True so they stop reading. Sometimes it takes years of reading the Bible to get your questions answered if you are not looking at any other resource because the answer isn't explicit in the same text you are reading from sometimes.

 

[Yttrium]

Deleted

 

[Pommer]

I invite you to find a religion with more evidence if you can.

This is why I’m a “sun worshiper”.

 

[All Becomes New]

This is why I’m a “sun worshiper”.

Oh? What does this religion entail?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm just naturally skeptical. I firmly believe that I exist, and I'm flexible on everything else. I was forced to conclude that I wasn't a Christian when I realized from my reading of the Bible that faith is a requirement to be Christian. Ironically, it wasn't until much later, after studying Christianity in more detail and discussing it with Christians that I came across some logical and conceptual problems that I have with mainstream Christianity (although not with the Gospels themselves).

So I would have to say that your method backfired in my case.

I never said that Pascal's Wager was 'my' method; all I've ever said about Pascal is that I'd wager for Christianity, but that doesn't mean I did it in just the way he prescribed ... I'm naturally skeptical as well, so figure that into your calculation.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You're citing what you perceive to be as two flaws here rather than merely one. I'd say there's only one ...

... and it's not Pascal's.

If you think you can point out how I'm incorrect, have at it.
If I'm wrong about Pascal's Wager being a load of nonsense, I'd be happy to hear why.

 

[Yttrium]

When you read the Bible for yourself and you are left to entertain any thoughts at all, it's easy to come up with questions that cause doubts that will not get answered unless you put in some serious study. Most people don't keep reading when they have doubts. They think their doubts are evidence that the Bible isn't True so they stop reading. Sometimes it takes years of reading the Bible to get your questions answered if you are not looking at any other resource because the answer isn't explicit in the same text you are reading from sometimes.

I'm just naturally skeptical. I firmly believe that I exist, and I'm flexible on everything else. I was forced to conclude that I wasn't a Christian when I realized from my reading of the Bible that faith is a requirement to be Christian. Ironically, it wasn't until much later, after studying Christianity in more detail and discussing it with Christians that I came across some logical and conceptual problems that I have with mainstream Christianity (although not with the Gospels themselves).

So I would have to say that your method backfired in my case.

 

[Yttrium]

I never said that Pascal's Wager was 'my' method; all I've ever said about Pascal is that I'd wager for Christianity, but that doesn't mean I did it in just the way he prescribed ... I'm naturally skeptical as well, so figure that into your calculation.

Sorry, I somehow linked your name in that post rather than True Counterphobia. Not sure how that happened, since I had True Counterphobia's quote.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you think you can point out how I'm incorrect, have at it.
If I'm wrong about Pascal's Wager being a load of nonsense, I'd be happy to hear why.

Firstly, the Wager is only recommended as a kind of rational therapy for those who ... actually would like to be Christian but find it difficult to do so.

But you knew this already, right?

Secondly, the Wager was purposely set down and embedded by Pascal within the overall corpus of his Pensees, and as with any literary text, if we want to do proper exegesis and hermeneutics, we DON'T get to just rip out whatever portions of what we think someone has said and hold it up to scoff at....

... unless we're trying to sabotage what we think that person stands for, of course.

Poor Pascal. So purposely misunderstood.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Firstly, the Wager is only recommended as a kind of rational therapy for those who ... actually would like to be Christian but find it difficult to do so.
But you knew this already, right?

I wish I did. All I know is that there was a time, not so long ago, when you couldn't move for misguided Christians saying, "Aha! Pascal's Wager! Checkmate, atheists!"
Happily, there were plenty of nobelievers who took the time to point out the mistakes in the arguments that apologists were making and laughed them to scorn, so now they usually know better than to try it.
As we've seen recently, there's still a few who know no better.

Poor Pascal. So purposely misunderstood.

I know, right? He must be spinning in his grave at what Christians are saying about him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wish I did. All I know is that there was a time, not so long ago, when you couldn't move for misguided Christians saying, "Aha! Pascal's Wager! Checkmate, atheists!"
Happily, there were plenty of nobelievers who took the time to point out the mistakes in the arguments that apologists were making and laughed them to scorn, so now they usually know better than to try it.
As we've seen recently, there's still a few who know no better.

I know, right? He must be spinning in his grave at what Christians are saying about him.

You may actually have made some good points there ...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You may actually have made some good points there ...

Thank you, Philo. Sincerely. I am honestly not certain I have ever heard that on Christian Forums before., You deserve a prize.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you, Philo. Sincerely. I am honestly not certain I have ever heard that on Christian Forums before., You deserve a prize.

You're welcome. And besides, I take umbrage with the misrepresentations that are made of almost anyone's perspective and viewpoint and not just of my own (or that of Pascal's).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You're welcome. And besides, I take umbrage with the misrepresentations that are made of almost anyone's perspective and viewpoint and not just of my own (or that of Pascal's).

A very proper spirit.

 

[Pommer]

Oh? What does this religion entail?

Don’t stare at god, (you’ll go blind)
Enjoy everything that she makes grow (don’t go overboard though, poison ivy can be painful)
Understand that god is not a “person” and will burn you if you overdo the “worship”.
It was here before you got here and will be here after you’re gone, death will be exactly like it was before you were born.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A very proper spirit.

Yes, it is!

 

[All Becomes New]

Don’t stare at god, (you’ll go blind)
Enjoy everything that she makes grow (don’t go overboard though, poison ivy can be painful)
Understand that god is not a “person” and will burn you if you overdo the “worship”.
It was here before you got here and will be here after you’re gone, death will be exactly like it was before you were born.

Seems rather shallow and hedonistic.